What are the 2-3 best introduction points that have to do with science?

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

 

I am not claiming a lightweight aluminum jet wing can slice through structural steel as we've been shown on Television.

You're not? Then who is? Because you're the only one I know that is claiming the wing sliced thorugh the steel.

Please give me some reference for this slicing action.

Please highlight where it says "wing slices through steel". I can't seem to find that.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

wtc.nist.gov...

Note the close up images of the slicing action linked below.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Baloney. If you are going to wallow in these alternative scenarios of sinister conspiracies involving secret controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, or whatever...and we both know that you are.

Can I call you a liar now that you're fabricating my words from whole cloth? I have never claimed such a thing. I have certainly speculated that conventional explosives were involved, but you'll have to back up that tripe with some proof or eat your words.

...then it most definitely is your responsibility to make sure that they need to better fit all the facts than the thermal expansion scenario does. Otherwise, you're not looking at the evidence to derive an explanation. You're deriving the explanation and trying to force the evidence to conform to the explanation.

Chew your words 100 times so you don't choke on them.

Ahem...

"My original response to the OP is that there are way too many variables involved- the structural damage inflicted by the impact, the damage to the fire insulation and fire suppression systems, which specific component of the towers failed first- are all largely an unknown, so we cannot conclusively prove anything either way."

"inflicted by the impact" of WHAT???!!! What could slice structural steel like that? If it's a jet wing, I am looking for proof thereof. If you're hanging your hat on TV video, spit it out already.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Well, that and my sister's eyewitness.

Name please.

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Well, that and my sister's eyewitness.

Name please.

Yeah, that would be the day.

Face it, I'm like thousands of other Americans that personally know witnesses, and your asking us to think that our friends, relatives, etc. are either pathetically stupid or profound liars.

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Well, that and my sister's eyewitness.

Name please.

www.flcv.com...

Ahem......lots of them.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Well, that and my sister's eyewitness.

Name please.

Yeah, that would be the day.

Face it, I'm like thousands of other Americans that personally know witnesses, and your asking us to think that our friends, relatives, etc. are either pathetically stupid or profound liars.

Read my signature.

Face it, you're like thousands of people who know nothing more than the rest of us and I can't describe how creepy it is to be talking to someone who's pretending to have a sister, much less one who witnessed something...what, no one knows but the mystery isn't really killing me so don't bother telling me.

reply to post by FDNY343


And you think the government that doesn't need forensic proof of any of their claims at the scene of the crime of the century wouldn't have come up with enough false victims to make up for the missing real ones?

What do those photos prove...do you know any of those people personally?

Can you think of any use for a live person who was publicly announced dead?

How can you be sure how many of these alleged victims are real unless each and every one is followed up on?
How many are in the Social Security Death Index? How many of their families have received money from the Victims Compensation Fund?

Have any of those photographs been altered? Would you be able to tell if they were?

Woah,
Okay, I'm the original poster and I finally got around to reading all this thread. I'm surprised at the level of bogusness this conversation turned to.

I believe there was Controlled Demolition (CD) but not all this other stuff that keeps popping up.

This is all wack:
-No-planers
-Tampered video footage of the planes hitting the towers
-CD used to create an impact hole (lol)
-THE PLANES NOT BEING ABLE TO PENETRATE THE BUILDING

This doesn't mean anything important:
-near free-fall speeds for WTC1 and WTC2.

The bulk of collapse wasn't pre-initiation stuff. Controlled Demolition doesn't need to start early because right after the first *boom* in which 15-30 core columns are hit at the same time (really high up - 98th floor for WTC1), collapse progressions was underway. The ROOSD process drove the collapse. There wouldn't be big or medium sized jolts (making the collapse appear choppy) since the upper portions were tilted and any interactions with the lower portion were numerous (causing numerous minijolts). Finally the ROOSD collapse progression has the upper portions moving down smoothly and quickly - driving floors down without any noticeable jolts.

Here is an archive of 9/11 Evidence Based Research that shows features of the collapse process and the order in which they happened.


ROOSD is the only known propagation mechanism which agrees with all observables (with exception of some ejections).

Because there was certain ejections there had to of been controlled demolition. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. In this link you'll see analysis of the collapse progression.. and once the building is collapsing straight down it would be impossible for the 75th floor of WTC2 to be forcefully ejected out of the west side unless there was man made intervention. That floor should of been crushed.

Any explosions detonated during the collapse progression were to keep the buildings' collapse "on track". The perpetrators wanted the buildings to fall on themselves so that evidence would demolish itself.

Originally posted by patriots4truth
Any explosions detonated during the collapse progression were to keep the buildings' collapse "on track". The perpetrators wanted the buildings to fall on themselves so that evidence would demolish itself.

That's interesting. Now exactly how does casuing the buildings to fall on themselves destroy all evidence of the controlled demolition? Remember 1000's of persons would be combing very carefully through the wreckage and debris first looking for survivors and then looking for remains.

reply to post by patriots4truth


Regardless what you already believe what does the damage to the tower indicate?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/117fe6565b66.jpg[/atsimg]

This is a close up of the left side of the north tower gash. How can an inside-out motion as indicated above inflict the left-to-right damage shown below?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2429d0810263.jpg[/atsimg]

I don't think you are on to anything there Yankee. Which way the columns are bent in that corner seems rather unsubstantial given all the random variables of a crash at that speed

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by patriots4truth
Any explosions detonated during the collapse progression were to keep the buildings' collapse "on track". The perpetrators wanted the buildings to fall on themselves so that evidence would demolish itself.

That's interesting. Now exactly how does casuing the buildings to fall on themselves destroy all evidence of the controlled demolition? Remember 1000's of persons would be combing very carefully through the wreckage and debris first looking for survivors and then looking for remains.

It didn't necessarily destroy all the evidence but it would do a better job at burying evidence than toppling over at an angle. Plus falling in on itself would guarantee the deaths of everyone left inside if there was any witnesses. And who knows what other evidence the perpetrators wanted buried under the rubble (maybe they wanted the basement area buried as much as possible). Also, the perps may not of wanted the towers to fall on other buildings (for whatever the reason).

reply to post by patriots4truth

It didn't necessarily destroy all the evidence but it would do a better job at burying evidence than toppling over at an angle. Plus falling in on itself would guarantee the deaths of everyone left inside if there was any witnesses. And who knows what other evidence the perpetrators wanted buried under the rubble (maybe they wanted the basement area buried as much as possible). Also, the perps may not of wanted the towers to fall on other buildings (for whatever the reason).

Do you think "they" would take such a half-ass approach? I mean, even a little evidence is way too much in this case. And can you really gaurantee the deaths of all the witnesses? And witness to what?
Sounds like a dead end. Actually I can't even think of one reason to make the buildings collapse. Crashing the planes and killing hundreds would seem like more than enough cause for whatever political puproses you think 9/11 served. Hell, I think we would have been justified if the only thing that happened on 9/11 was the errant crash of flight 93 in Pennsylvania if it was caused directly by terrorist.

Meltings points... molten steel found after collapse ... laws of resistance whilst collapse ( steel support columns )